PC Debate: Your preferred term?

[RandFan]

Yes, they mutated.

They changed. But they did not change in a way that you suggest. Some changes can happen more quickly than others.

Good grief, RandFan, have you no understanding of evolutionary theory at all?

Why is it that even though my wife and I both have blue eyes one of our children has brown eyes?

A single individual may "adapt" to the degree that his gentic makeup allows this...

Yes, this is a correct statement. And we know according to Mendelian Genetics that human genetic makeup allows for any group of humans to adapt to changes in environment by changing skin color based upon heritable variation. Just like eye color our offspring can have different skin color based on genes (they don't need to mutate).

...but new bornes with different properties are the result of mutations.

1. Do you know who Mendelian is?
   
2. What did his discovery from his experiments with garden peas tell us?
   
3. Did his discovery have anything to do with human skin color?
   
4. Did his experiments suggest that change in attributes like color would require thousands of years?
   
5. According to Mendalian, can we predict how many generations it woud take to achieve a change in skin color?[/list=1]
   
   

   RandFan
   Their offspring could re-adapt in a short period of time if the environment changed.
   
   No idea what this means.

   It is quite simple. According to Mendelian Genetics offspring can adapt to changes in environment because of heritable variation including changes in skin color. Since skin color is more complex than eye color it is a slower process but certainly not as slow as 10's of thousands of years.
   
   

   RandFan, I like you. I don't want to make a fool of you. Please go study a bit on evolution.

   I have. I know that variations in skin color can be explained by Mendalian genetics. I know that changes in variations can occur in a short period of time.
   
   

   Please provide even one example in the history of the Earth where a species in nature mutated to a new species or to a sub-species in just 6 generations. If you can do this, I suspect it would be a world sensation.

   Great straw man. I never claimed that humans mutated to a new species or subspecies. If you would have read the material that I provided you would know that.
   
   BTW, your reasoning is circular.
   • You claim that humans are a sub species.
     
   • For proof you site differences in skin color.
     
   • You claim that skin color would take large periods of time to mutate.
     
   • For proof you state that a sub-species would require large periods of time for to mutate.
   My claims:
   1. Human can adapt to changes in environment including changes in skin color.
      
   2. Changes in skin color are simply a matter of differences in allels which occur to offspring and can be expressed by simple mathmatics.
      
   3. These adaptations are the result of heritable variation.
      
   4. According to Mendelian Genetics, all humans are capable of producing offspring with different characteristics such as eye color, hair color and skin color.
      
   5. Skin color is based upon 3 genes which are responsible for melanin formation in the skin.
      
   6. Each gene has 2 alleles: one for making more melanin and one for making less melanin, signified by A or a. Therefore, people can range from AAAAAA (darkest) to aaaaaa (lightest). Intermediate skin tones result from having some A alleles and some a alleles.
      
   7. From this palate any skin color can be reproduced from any two humans given enough generations WITHOUT the thousands of years that you talk about.[/list=1]

 

[gnome]

Acutally I agree with you. I said as much earlier. And I certainly don't want to pressure anyone to stop using the word race. I just want people to understand that the word does not mean what we used to think it meant.

You are right and this is a derailment. My appology.

RandFan

*puts on "crazy train"*

I think the OP question is pretty much answered... apparently the black community of JREF has spoken, and we're already mostly in accord with their wishes.

So let the derailing continue!

 

[RandFan]

I have to point out the irony of myself attacking the use of the word Race. Particularly when I use the PBS.org site which counters the use of the word race for what seems to me to be for PC purposes.

Too bad AUP or Billy didn't pick up on this.

 

[RandFan]

I'm having difficulty reconciling two of your statements.

DanishDynamite
I thought so too, but strictly speaking this apparently isn't the case. Sub-species can be categorized just by behavoural differences alone. For example, the sub species known as the northern White Rhino and the southern White Rhino have no genetic differences (sorry, can't find a link) but they do have a few behavoural differences and they have been geographically seperated for 100's of thousands of years.
Please provide even one example in the history of the Earth where a species in nature mutated to a new species or to a sub-species in just 6 generations.

If you can do this, I suspect it would be a world sensation.

DanishDynamite
Sub-species can be categorized just by behavoural differences alone. For example, the sub species known as the northern White Rhino and the southern White Rhino have no genetic differences (sorry, can't find a link) but they do have a few behavoural differences and they have been geographically seperated for 100's of thousands of years.

Questons:

1. Define sub-species?
   
2. Is mutation required to create a new sub-species?
   
3. Can you reconcile the two paragraphs? In one the difference is large and requires very large periods of time. In the other the difference is slight and would seem not to require as much time.[/list=1]Finally, if you won't accept my assertions that the differences between whites and blacks are simply adaptation via heritable variations described by mendalian genetics and NOT mutation then I would like a link for your claim about Rhinos. It only seems fair.

 

[RSLancastr]

<< Once we get away from the absurd contention that "fat chick" is equal to "ni**er," what is left of your point that is worth consideration? >>

Well, since nobody made that contention, you can "get away from it" as soon as you'd like.

I said, in very simple language, that it amazed me that some people who have the common sense not to use a term like "ni**er" in such a context, still think it is perfectly acceptable to use terms such as "fat chicks" in a similar context.

<< I asked what the point is that still stands, also supplying a more neutral and less colorful recap of the comment that started the whole mess. >>

Sure, that's what you were doing. Being more neutral: "horizontally challenged". Har-dee-har.

<< In return nothing but a vague insult. >>

Actually, I thought it quite specific. If a person sees nothing insulting about the term that was used, there would most likely be no point in trying to explain it to them.

<< Talk about offensive behaviour... >>

So I have been.

 

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by RSLancastr << Once we get away from the absurd contention that "fat chick" is equal to "ni**er," what is left of your point that is worth consideration? >>

Well, since nobody made that contention, you can "get away from it" as soon as you'd like.

Then read your next exerpt...

I said, in very simple language, that it amazed me that some people who have the common sense not to use a term like "ni**er" in such a context, still think it is perfectly acceptable to use terms such as "fat chicks" in a similar context.

And I'm amazed that it amazes you. More amazed that you continue to equate the two on some level.

<< I asked what the point is that still stands, also supplying a more neutral and less colorful recap of the comment that started the whole mess. >>

Sure, that's what you were doing. Being more neutral: "horizontally challenged". Har-dee-har.

Not that one. Then I was mocking you as you deserved. I am talking about the one refering to "women of substance" w/r/t your first "my point still stands."

<< In return nothing but a vague insult. >>

Actually, I thought it quite specific. If a person sees nothing insulting about the term that was used, there would most likely be no point in trying to explain it to them.

This is quite a strawman. I never said there was nothing possibly insulting about the term. I just don't see how, when used in that context, it is worth mentioning in the same breath as use of the word "ni**er." It isn't even the most insulting manner in which to refer to overweight females. If you don't believe me I can start a list...

<< Talk about offensive behaviour... >>

So I have been.

Yes, but you still will not inform us to the point that still stands other than to question the moral integrity of those that ask for an explaination. I'll leave to you to explain how that behaviour is not more offensive than someone mentioning that he likes to have sex with women of size in more direct terms.

 

[Rob Lister]

Yes, but you still will not inform us to the point that still stands other than to question the moral integrity of those that ask for an explaination. I'll leave to you to explain how that behaviour is not more offensive than someone mentioning that he likes to have sex with women of size in more direct terms.

While at least one person on this thread may object to me saying so, I feel I should state, for the record, that were it not for "fat chicks", I would never have come to fully enjoying sex.

Rob Lister: hanging out at a VFW club near you (and we're talking moo-moo big. Dress sizes lose all meaning)

 

[RSLancastr]

I'll leave to you to explain how that behaviour is not more offensive than someone mentioning that he likes to have sex with women of size in more direct terms.

And you truly believe that is all he meant by the comment?

 

[RSLancastr]

And I'm amazed that it amazes you. More amazed that you continue to equate the two on some level.

Heaven's, now I see how right you are. They have no relation to each other whatsoever! One is an insulting term, and the other is merely... oh, wait! No, I was right the first time.

 

[Rob Lister]

And you truly believe that is all he meant by the comment?

Again, and for the record: yea, that's pretty much it nowadays. It used to be novel but now I'm married.

 

[RSLancastr]

Again, and for the record: yea, that's pretty much it nowadays. It used to be novel but now I'm married.

So, when you equate something to eating so much greasy food that you are ill, then it is a good thing.

I see.

 

[Rob Lister]

So, when you equate something to eating so much greasy food that you are ill, then it is a good thing.

I see.

Greasy? The food of topic isn't really greasy. I just got a bad one. That happens. Happens with fat chicks too. Mostly because of the uncooked flour.

 

[Suddenly]

And you truly believe that is all he meant by the comment?

Yes.

 

[Suddenly]

Heaven's, now I see how right you are. They have no relation to each other whatsoever! One is an insulting term, and the other is merely... oh, wait! No, I was right the first time.

Gee. You are right.

They also are in english, and are made up as letters. Even more damning to my position is that they both contain the letter "i'

 

[Suddenly]

So, when you equate something to eating so much greasy food that you are ill, then it is a good thing.

I see.

No. He said he liked it, speaking w/r/t the food in question:

I like the crunchy-soft-tart-bitter mixture enough to forego reason. Sort of like having sex with fat chicks.

Note the use of the word "like."


I reformulated this thus:

All we have is some whinging over someone's claim to enjoy the physical affections of women of substance, a claim used as a colorful analogy to his adaptation of another culture's dietary practice even though even he finds it somewhat eccentric and unusual when he views it in an objective manner.

To explain further I would suggest that eating partially developed chicken embreyos (or is it duck?) is unusual for a westerner, but some like it anyway. Likewise, an affinity for the larger women is also unusual in this culture, but there are those that like it. Just an analogy.

 

[Suddenly]

While at least one person on this thread may object to me saying so, I feel I should state, for the record, that were it not for "fat chicks", I would never have come to fully enjoying sex.

Rob Lister: hanging out at a VFW club near you (and we're talking moo-moo big. Dress sizes lose all meaning)

You are doing the Virginia tradition proud.

 

[BillyTK]

"...He feels that American society defines people too narrowly by race: in the United States, he said, "black" is an "all-encompassing" ethnic group."

A good observation.
By painting everything and everyone in the US as only either black or white, the ends of racism are neatly served, forcing those who see themselves as red or brown or yellow, but more importantly, those who are currently bearing the onus of discrimination, to check a box referring to themselves as 'white'.

There's more begging going on here than outside Kings Cross station on a Friday evening, as well as an interestingly mixed metaphor. There's always the possibility that those who check the 'white' box do so, because they've seen the treatment handed out to blacks and don't wish to be so identified. See also, the myth of the model minority

This creates the incredibly ironic situation where an Hispanic farmworker or an Asian sweatshop worker locked into slave quarters tonight are labellled as greedy and racist beneficiaries of 'white privilege', while Michael Jackson and O.J. are downtrodden and oppressed because of their 'blackness'.

But at least they're not black.

 

[DanishDynamite]

RandFan,

I won't be responding to your first two replies to me line by line as I think there is little to respond to aside from this quote from you:

And by todays standards the use of the word "race" is becoming anachronistic.

This is what I've said from the beginning. It would seem then that we are in agreement, at least on this point.

 

[DanishDynamite]

RandFan:

They changed. But they did not change in a way that you suggest. Some changes can happen more quickly than others.

Any physical change which is "transmitted" to the next generation, and is not part of the parents' DNA, is due to a mutation. It makes no difference how much the parents have adapted.

Why is it that even though my wife and I both have blue eyes one of our children has brown eyes?

Recessive genes.

Yes, this is a correct statement. And we know according to Mendelian Genetics that human genetic makeup allows for any group of humans to adapt to changes in environment by changing skin color based upon heritable variation. Just like eye color our offspring can have different skin color based on genes (they don't need to mutate).

I think I'm beginning to understand what you are trying to say. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are saying that the potential for offspring having different characteristics from their parents already exists, even without mutations.

In that case, I agree. The problem, of course, is that the possible differences are minute and of no relevance when discussing races.

[*]Do you know who Mendelian is?

Sure.

[*]What did his discovery from his experiments with garden peas tell us?

Lots of stuff. Which one are you thinking of?

[*]Did his discovery have anything to do with human skin color?

Indirectly, I would say yes.

[*]Did his experiments suggest that change in attributes like color would require thousands of years?

I don't recall him saying anything on this matter. Is it important?

[*]According to Mendalian, can we predict how many generations it woud take to achieve a change in skin color?

See above.

It is quite simple. According to Mendelian Genetics offspring can adapt to changes in environment because of heritable variation including changes in skin color. Since skin color is more complex than eye color it is a slower process but certainly not as slow as 10's of thousands of years.

I have. I know that variations in skin color can be explained by Mendalian genetics. I know that changes in variations can occur in a short period of time.

Evidence, please!

And not evidence of Mendelev's thoughts, but on how soon existent genes for skin color would manifest a black skin when the ínhabitants just interbreed amon themselves in a sunny environment.

Great straw man. I never claimed that humans mutated to a new species or subspecies. If you would have read the material that I provided you would know that.

You claimed that:

...., if natives of scandinavia were moved to certain parts of Africa and reproduced and their offspring in turn reproduced they would eventully take on the charachterisitcs of native Africans. I think 6 generations is necassary.

Kindly show that this ridiculous assertion has any merit.

BTW, your reasoning is circular.[*]You claim that humans are a sub species.

No I don't.

[*]For proof you site differences in skin color.

No I don't. I simply asked why skin color wouldn't be sufficient to categorize a sub-species.

[*]You claim that skin color would take large periods of time to mutate.

No I don't. I claimed that the seperation of a species into different sub-species would require 1000's of generations.

[*]For proof you state that a sub-species would require large periods of time for to mutate.

Yesish. Not sure what you mean by "proof".

My claims:

1. Human can adapt to changes in environment including changes in skin color.
   
2. Changes in skin color are simply a matter of differences in allels which occur to offspring and can be expressed by simple mathmatics.
   
3. These adaptations are the result of heritable variation.
   
4. According to Mendelian Genetics, all humans are capable of producing offspring with different characteristics such as eye color, hair color and skin color.
   
5. Skin color is based upon 3 genes which are responsible for melanin formation in the skin.
   
6. Each gene has 2 alleles: one for making more melanin and one for making less melanin, signified by A or a. Therefore, people can range from AAAAAA (darkest) to aaaaaa (lightest). Intermediate skin tones result from having some A alleles and some a alleles.
   
7. From this palate any skin color can be reproduced from any two humans given enough generations WITHOUT the thousands of years that you talk about.[/list=1]

1. Cool. Now please show your claim that this happened in 6 generations.

 

[aerocontrols]

DD and Rik might find this article relevant.